Marginal bone loss of implant-supported prostheses with and without cantilever - a systematic review and meta-analysis

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2017.05.016

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of the present review was to evaluate the clinical parameters and marginal bone loss of implant-supported prostheses with cantilever; and to assess the influence of cantilever length on the clinical parameters and marginal bone loss of implant-supported prostheses with cantilever. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to May 1st, 2016 for articles on implant-supported prostheses with cantilever. Meta analysis was performed for studies reporting implant success rate, implant survival rate and marginal bone loss of implant-supported prostheses with and without cantilever. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-three titles and abstracts were retrieved from the electronic search for possible inclusion in the review. Finally, 16 studies were included. For implant-supported fixed partially prostheses, meta analysis showed no significant differences in implant survival, success and marginal bone loss. For implant-supported full arch prostheses, 10 studies reported that survival rate ranged from 97% to 100%, success rate ranged from 52% to 98% and marginal bone loss ranged from 0.23 to 1.73 mm. No unfavorable effect of cantilever length was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, implant-supported fixed partial prostheses with cantilever could be considered as a predictable treatment option. High survival rates and acceptable marginal bone loss were reported in implant-supported full arch prostheses with cantilever. The cantilever length less than 9 mm was safe in implant-supported partial prostheses, while cantilever length less than 15.6 mm was acceptable in implant-supported full arch prostheses.

Key words: Cantilever, Marginal bone loss, Clinical evaluation, Systematic review

CLC Number:

R781.4

SHI Jun-yu, ZHANG Xiao-meng, GU Ying-xin, MO Jia-ji, QIAO Shi-chong, LAI Hong-chang.. Marginal bone loss of implant-supported prostheses with and without cantilever - a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2017, 15(5): 457-462.

References

[1] Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, et al. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(Suppl): 308-324.
[2] de Waal YC, van Winkelhoff AJ, Meijer HJ, et al. Differences in peri-implant conditions between fully and partially edentulous subjects: a systematic review [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2013, 40(3): 266-286.
[3] Katsoulis J, Muller P, Mericske-Stern R, et al. CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long- vs. short-span implant-supported FDPs [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26(3): 245-249.
[4] Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Husler J, et al. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26 (Suppl 11): 154-169.
[5] Ozgur GO, Kazancioglu HO, Demirtas N, et al. Risk factors associated with ｉmplant marginal bone loss: a retrospective 6-year　follow-up study [J]. Implant Dent, 2016, 25(1): 122-127.
[6] Romanos GE, Gupta B, Eckert SE. Distal cantilevers and implant dentistry [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(5): 1131-1136.
[7] den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, et al. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2008, 35(12): 1073-1086.
[8] Eliasson A, Eriksson T, Johansson A, et al. Fixed partial prostheses supported by 2 or 3 implants: a retrospective study up to 18 years [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2006, 21(4): 567-574.
[9] Jensen OT, Adams MW, Butura C, et al. Maxillary V-4: Four implant treatment for maxillary atrophy with dental implants fixed apically at the vomer-nasal crest, lateral pyriform rim, and zygoma for immediate function. Report on 44 patients followed from 1 to 3 years [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2015, 114(6): 810-817.
[10] Wennstrm JL, Ekestubbe A, Grndahl K, et al. Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2004, 31(9): 713-724.
[11] Aglietta M, Iorio Siciliano V, Blasi A, et al. Clinical and radiographic changes at implants supporting single-unit crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with one cantilever extension. A retrospective study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(5): 550-555.
[12] Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications [J]. J Prosthodont, 2016 Feb 5. [Epub ahead of print]
[13] Gallucci GO, Doughtie CB, Hwang JW, et al. Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009, 20(6): 601-607.
[14] Halg GA, Schmid J, Hammerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2008, 19(10): 983-990.
[15] Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, et al. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014, 25(2): 175-184.
[16] Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, et al. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007, 18(6): 720-726.
[17] Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinlander M, et al. Clinical outcome and peri-implant findings of four-implant-supported distal cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses: five-year results [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2013, 28(3): 831-840.
[18] Krennmair S, Weinlander M, Forstner T, et al. Factors affecting peri-implant bone resorption in four Implant supported mandibular full-arch restorations: a 3-year prospective study [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2016, 43(1): 92-101.
[19] Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A. The prognosis of partial implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers. A 5-year retrospective cohort study [J]. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2013, 6(1): 51-59.
[20] Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, et al. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: results after 3 years [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(1): 35-40.
[21] Romanos GE, Gupta B, Gaertner K, et al. Distal cantilever in full-arch prostheses and immediate loading: a retrospective clinical study [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(2): 427-431.
[22] Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, et al. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2003, 14(3): 303-311.
[23] Romeo E, Tomasi C, Finini I, et al. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prosthesis in partially edentulous jaws: a cohort prospective study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009, 20(11): 1278-1285.
[24] Tymstra N, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, et al. Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the maxillary aesthetic zone: a comparative pilot study and test of principle [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011, 22(2): 207-213.
[25] Wennstrm J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, et al. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2004, 31(12): 1077-1083.
[26] Wu MJ, Wang XJ, Zou LD, et al. Evaluation of the therapeutic efficiency of mandibular anterior implant-supported fixed bridges with cantilevers[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2013, 126(24): 4665-4669.
[27] Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29 (Suppl): 84-98.
[28] Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2016, 27(2): 174-195.
[29] Zurdo J, Romao C, Wennstrom JL. Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009, 20 (Suppl 4): 59-66.
[30] Torrecillas-Martinez L, Monje A, Lin GH, et al. Effect of cantilevers for implant-supported prostheses on marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications: systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(6): 1315-1321.